Tony Blair: Opposition Members can shout, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some 250,000 or more new staff have joined the NHS in the past few years—including, incidentally, 85,000 nurses. She is right to say that the Birmingham hospital redevelopment will cost almost £700 million. Indeed, most of the hospital stock that existed under the previous Government and when this party came to office was built before the NHS was created. That has changed as a result of the largest-ever hospital building programme. For all the difficulties and challenges facing the NHS, we should never forget how much better it under this Labour Government.

Tony Blair: We have actually had a lot of results, both in Bexley and elsewhere, where as a result of the additional investment of this Government in the Metropolitan police area, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there are thousands more police officers; there are community support officers; and recorded crime has actually gone down, not up. In addition, there is more investment in education, there is more investment in health care and there is more investment in pensioners—a lot more than under the Government that he used to support.

Tony Blair: We certainly will, and I can assure my hon. Friend that in places up and down this country we are seeing the results of the extra resource and the a numbers of police and community support officers, and of the additional powers to tackle antisocial behaviour—things like closing down homes that are used for drug dealing, ensuring that vandalism and so on can be dealt with by on-the-spot fines, and ensuring that we can put ASBOs on those people who are out of control and not behaving in a respectful and proper way within their community. And each and every one of those measures has been opposed by the Liberal Democrats and many have been opposed by the Conservatives.

David Davis: I have to say to the House that I respond to the Home Secretary's statement with regret, which is not something that I have said about all Home Office Ministers. I have known the right hon. Gentleman for 30 years, and despite our differences, I have always had a broad degree of respect for him. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded us over the last few days, it is the first duty of government to protect the public—and I am afraid that events of the last few days have demonstrated a culpable failure to protect public safety—[Interruption.] If the Government Chief Whip wishes to intervene, I am afraid that under the rules of the House, I am not allowed to let her do so; I will gladly do so on another occasion.
	The Home Secretary's statement reveals a disturbing neglect of public safety at the heart of Government. Following on from his statement last week on murders committed by offenders on probation, this is yet another example of his Department's failure and incompetence. There is no excuse for the Home Secretary not knowing about it. Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons report of 2002–03 highlighted
	"an institutional blind spot for foreign nationals as a whole",
	while the following year's report stated baldly:
	"In spite of the growing number of foreign national prisoners, there is still no national strategy, and too few prisons have their own local foreign national policies".
	The National Audit Office reported on the matter last July, and in September my shadow prisons Minister asked how many foreign nationals were in prison awaiting deportation. She was told that the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
	In October, when the Public Accounts Committee asked how many failed asylum seekers had been released from prison, the Home Office could not answer. When we asked again, as late as last November, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality claimed, with astonishing complacency that the Government were ensuring
	"that foreign national prisoners liable to deportation are removed promptly."—[Official Report, 21 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 1751W.]
	Now, after that series of warnings, the Home Secretary is still unable to give us the definitive figures. He says that to the best of his knowledge, 1,023 foreign-born prisoners who should have been considered for deportation have been released into the community, putting the public at risk. Is he even able to tell the House how many of those released criminals have committed further offences? We would expect half of those people to have reoffended. How many further serious crimes have been perpetrated by the people whom the Home Secretary has put back on our streets?
	When asked where the murderers, rapists, kidnappers and drug dealers were today, the Home Secretary said that he did not know, despite the fact that many, if not all, of those categories should have be subject to supervision, even if they had been British prisoners. But he presumably does know how many have been released, and he does know who has been deported. So if the Home Secretary does not know where they are, he must tell the House this: how many foreign convicted killers, how many convicted paedophiles, how many convicted rapists and how many convicted drug dealers are at large today, as result of his policy failure?
	Last night on "Newsnight", when asked if anyone was released in the period after we knew about this problem, the Home Secretary said, "Very, very few," but a statement broadcast after the 10 o'clock news announced that 288 more foreign criminals were released after the Home Secretary explicitly knew that there was a problem: 288 releases over eight months is actually a faster rate than 700 over six years. The rate of release of those criminals into the community was greater after July, when he found out, than it was before July. Does the Home Secretary really believe that almost 300 foreign convicted criminals released into our communities is "Very, very few"? I am afraid that I must tell him that I cannot think of a starker demonstration of a Minister not in charge of his Department.
	The Home Secretary is a proud man, and he will be mortally embarrassed by the failure that we have heard about today, so I am not surprised that he offered his resignation to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said that he should not go. At 4 pm I was saying that he should not go. On the 6 o'clock news I was saying that he should not go. On the 10 o'clock news I was saying that he should not go. But like the Prime Minister at the time of his earlier admission, we did not know all the facts yesterday. The information released overnight is that 288 criminals were released after the Government knew about the problem. I am sorry to say that because of this culpable failure to protect the safety of the public, the Home Secretary's position is now untenable.

Sally Keeble: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on a matter that is of great concern to my constituents, who want reassurance. Having listened to the exchanges, it appears that there is problem with delays in decision-making by IND on those cases. My constituents want to know why it takes a certain length of time to decide to deport someone who has committed a desperately serious crime. What will my right hon. Friend do to speed up decision-making so that decisions are made quickly and the processes can be cut down if necessary to prevent delays in deporting serious criminals?

Charles Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot give that commitment under EU law. What I can tell him, which may interest him, is that there are about 1,000 more prisoners from other EU states in our prisons than there are UK citizens in EU prisons, if I may put it like that. That imbalance is correct. That is why we have argued in the EU, with the support of the current Austrian presidency, for a directive which provides that people should be returned to the EU country from which they come, for reasons of rehabilitation, as much as anything else. They are more likely to be able to stop re-offending in their own community. A number of countries in the EU support the change that we propose, as does the Austrian presidency. Some countries do not, for various reasons, but we are pressing for a directive that would have the effect of ensuring that EU prisoners were imprisoned in their country of origin, rather than in other places. That would have the side benefit of reducing some of the pressure on prison places in this country.

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill—
	Timetable
	1.—(1) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at the moment of interruption.
	(2) Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed in one day and shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
	2.—(1) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put.
	(2) When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
	3. On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
	4. For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Speaker or Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
	(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
	(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
	(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
	(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.
	5. On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	6.—(1) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, one hour after their commencement.
	7.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 6.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question already proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
	(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment the Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	(a) a single Question on any further Amendments to the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—
	!-- label=st_108 --
	(a) a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
	(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees to the Lords Amendment or (as the case may be) to the Lords Amendment as amended.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House disagrees to a Lords Amendment.
	(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees to all the remaining Lords Amendments.
	(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed to a Lords Amendment, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown and relevant to the Lords Amendment.
	Subsequent stages
	8.—(1) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(2) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	9.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 8.
	(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
	(3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords Message.
	(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
	Reasons Committee
	10.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons in relation to the Bill and the appointment of its Chairman.
	(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
	(3) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
	(4) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) the Chairman shall—
	(a) first put forthwith any Question which has been proposed from the Chair but not yet decided, and
	(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
	(5) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
	Miscellaneous
	11. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply in so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
	12. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 shall apply to those proceedings.
	13. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
	14. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to re-commit the Bill; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	15. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
	16.—(1) This paragraph applies if—
	(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock, Four o'clock or Three o'clock (as the case may be), but
	(b) proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before then.
	(2) Proceedings on that Motion shall stand postponed until the conclusion of those proceedings.
	17. If a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an Order of the Day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
	18. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
	19. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
	The programme motion is based on discussions through the usual channels and reflects the urgent nature of the Bill. The House will already be aware that our plan is that the Assembly should be up and running by 15 May. For reasons that the Prime Minister set out in his joint statement with the Taoiseach at Armagh on 6 April and which I shall expand on later, we believe it is crucial that real momentum is now given to the pursuit of devolution in Northern Ireland. The 15 May date would give Assembly Members six weeks to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and to make the necessary ministerial nominations before the beginning of July, when the Assembly traditionally begins its summer recess. It is for that reason that the Bill needs to be given swift passage through this House.
	Although the purposes the Bill serves are vital, it is a modest production. It contains six clauses, only two of which are substantive, and three schedules. Most of its provisions change the law only temporarily. The Assembly will operate in the new manner set out in the Bill by no later than 24 November. After that, the arrangements in the present law will be revived—whether that is full devolution, as provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or the continued suspension of devolution under the Northern Ireland Act 2000.
	I believe that the two days allotted under the programme motion is a substantial allowance of the time of the House for the discussion of such a Bill.
	Question agreed to.

Peter Hain: Let me finish the point and then I shall gladly give way.
	Paragraph 2.14 is important to answering the fair question that the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr. McCrea) asked. It states:
	"We recognise, as we did when we reported three months ago, that the leadership is engaged in a challenging task in ensuring full compliance with this strategy. The response of members will naturally enough be influenced by the surrounding political circumstances as well as by long-held personal views. It is to be expected that there may be instances where members or associates do not always follow the leadership's line".
	The report says that, of course, there may be individual republicans, who still call themselves republicans and perhaps attach themselves to the name "Provisional IRA", who are engaged in illegal activity. However, that is outwith the organisation and without the sanction and approval of the leadership and certainly without its prior knowledge. That is completely different from the position in the past, when the IRA was organised from the centre and from the top. It was not only a violent terrorist organisation but it undertook, conducted and organised criminal activity to raise funds to finance that violence and terrorism. The difference now is that it is not a question of whether individual republicans have come into full compliance or not. Given the culture that has existed for too long in Northern Ireland, it would be difficult to imagine that everybody would behave absolutely perfectly, as a very interesting passage in the IMC report acknowledges. The crucial point is that the organisation's leadership is delivering on what it promised and the hon. Gentleman should welcome that, because it is indeed historic.

Peter Hain: That is exactly my interpretation of what the IMC says. In relation to the statement that any information that the organisation receives is not outside the terms of the July statement, I can only conclude that it is the kind of political information that all political parties like to receive on our opponents, and that it is not for any other purpose. Again, we have seen a major change. About a year ago, it was reported that the IRA was still gathering intelligence, even though it had stopped targeting and had no apparent intent to commit any paramilitary actions. Now we know that the intelligence activity that may or may not be going on in terms of the receipt of information is, presumably, entirely political, and is certainly not directed towards supporting any violent, paramilitary or illegal action.
	The IMC report welcomes Gerry Adams's comments in which he supported the pursuit of criminal assets—this is important, given the questions that I was asked earlier—and said that anybody involved in criminality should face the full rigours of the law. That was very welcome indeed. Since the report was compiled, the IRA has reiterated that position in its Easter message. The IMC draws the distinction between what members or former members of an organisation may do as individuals and what has been authorised, sanctioned or approved by the organisation itself, a distinction acknowledged by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in his very interesting speech to the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body in Killarney on Tuesday.
	In the context of believing what people do as well as what they say, that distinction is crucial. We should all take encouragement from what is now clearly the case according to the IMC; namely that the IRA has delivered, and is continuing to deliver, on its promise to end all violence and criminality, so that republicans are committed to democratic and peaceful methods. Of course there are individual criminals out there, some claiming republican or loyalist affiliation; but as the recent activity of the Garda, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Criminal Assets Bureau and the Assets Recovery Agency has shown, they will be ruthlessly pursued, whoever they are. In short, there has been and continues to be momentous progress to report.
	Trust is a two-way process. Where there has been deep division and where fears and suspicion were well-founded, trust is not going to emerge freshly minted. It must be developed and built on and the only way in which to do that is through dialogue.If parties are serious about testing the bona fides of others, they should do it as we do in this House, face to face. If parties are serious about devolution, they should engage with one another. If parties make a point of their mandate as leaders of their community, they should respect the mandate of others and show real leadership.
	Frankly, it is hard for an outsider to understand why members of the DUP will talk to Sinn Fein in television studios and sit with Sinn Fein members as local councillors, but will not talk to Sinn Fein privately or as Members of the Legislative Assembly. It is equally hard to see why Sinn Fein is able to meet the Chief Constable in Downing street, while the Sinn Fein chairman of a council will not talk to a district commander at a civic function. What Northern Ireland needs is mature politics. Between May 15 and 24 November, we will see whether the people of Northern Ireland will get the leadership that they deserve.
	Let me now deal with the Bill. The framework is simple; it brings back the Members of the Assembly to meet in order to prepare for the restoration of devolved government, which means selecting an Executive. If they achieve that by 24 November we shall proceed immediately to devolution, with Assembly elections in May 2008. If they do not, we shall have to proceed by other means, and the Assembly election scheduled for May 2007 will be postponed indefinitely.
	The Assembly would meet on 15 May in a new mode. It would have no legislative powers, there would be no Executive and hence the direct rule arrangements would continue. The Bill provides for me to refer to the Assembly first the selection of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, then the running of the d'Hondt process to fill the other ministerial posts in the Executive. I can also refer other matters to the Assembly as I think fit.
	The arrangements are similar to those that applied when the Assembly was first elected in 1998. I have power to make directions about procedure, including the appointment of a presiding officer and the provision of Standing Orders. That is important, because the Assembly in its early days must not be distracted from its main tasks by long-drawn-out discussions on preliminary issues.
	As I have said, I intend to appoint Mrs Eileen Bell as presiding officer. She is highly respected among the parties, and I am sure that she will fill her post with distinction. In the operation of the Assembly, I hope that there can be the greatest possible consensus between us and the parties, and in that event I shall be only too happy to leave the Assembly to sort out internal issues for itself.

Peter Hain: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend; she has expressed herself eloquently and forcefully. It has been suggested that there is overwhelming or near total opposition to the education reforms, but in fact, there is strong support for them, including from those elected to this House who take their seats. So people should not assume that we are riding roughshod over Northern Ireland opinion by implementing this policy. One section of opinion opposes such education reforms, but another—it includes professionals, educationalists, teachers and others—is strongly in favour.

David Lidington: The hon. Lady has put her finger on one of the aspects that I hope the House will probe in detail in the debates that we will have tomorrow. One of the points on which I will then seek clarification from the Minister of State is whether the enabling powers to which the hon. Lady has just referred will be carefully circumscribed by reference to the purposes of this particular Bill or whether they could, as she suggests, have a wider application than the House would wish to provide.
	I can understand why the Government have chosen the type of language that they have, but I am a little critical of their approach to the debate on the Bill. It is presented too much as if there were a neat symmetry between republicans and Unionists. The Secretary of State was right when he said at the beginning of his speech that what is stopping devolution happening is the brute fact that the majority of the Unionist community—and, for that matter, many nationalists—in Northern Ireland do not yet feel able to trust Sinn Fein and the IRA when they say that they have put terrorism permanently behind them.
	I would have greater sympathy with the Secretary of State's later argument—that the different political parties in Northern Ireland should, in effect, shape up, come together and reach an agreement—if that involved only the sort of sincere yet profound differences that exist between his party and mine, for example, or between the Unionist parties and the SDLP. Such differences come down to questions about how policy should be decided in an agreed constitutional, democratic and peaceful context. However, the reality is different: the unionist community is being asked to engage with, trust and go into government alongside members of a political movement that for decades has been dedicated to the destruction of the political entity that is Northern Ireland. Moreover, that movement has tried to change the constitutional status through violence and, at times, acts of indiscriminate slaughter rather than through the ballot box. We are being asked to make that leap of faith at a time when the republican movement is still led by men who in the past have authorised or taken part in acts of violence that have caused grievous loss of life and injury among people from all communities and on both sides of the water.
	The process of coming to terms with engaging with members of Sinn Fein has been difficult enough for my party, as we have lost friends and colleagues to terrorism. Some of my colleagues in the House of Lords and elsewhere in the Conservative party will bear the physical and mental scars for the rest of their lives. Others of my friends, including a fair number of current Members of this House, have had to live for months or years with the knowledge that they and perhaps their families were on an IRA list, and with the expectation that they could be threatened or attacked at any time.
	I can recall conversations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and with Lord Mawhinney in which they described how peculiar it was for them, as Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, to sit down to negotiate with men who they knew for certain had been plotting their murder only a few months previously. I am not making a special plea on behalf of my party but, if members of the Conservative party have reason to be wary and cautious, that must be doubly and trebly the case for members of the Unionist parties. All hon. Members, irrespective of party allegiance, must understand how much we ask of our Unionist colleagues when we argue that a political agreement has to include Sinn Fein.

Paul Murphy: The debate has been interesting so far and I am sure it will continue to be so.
	I certainly welcome the Independent Monitoring Commission publication today; there is still a long way to go, but with reference to the IRA, it indicates that progress has been made. I also welcome the statement made in Killarney this week by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) when he and his colleagues addressed a meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body, which I co-chair. His statement was excellent, especially in terms of his party's willingness to share power with nationalists in Northern Ireland.
	I welcome the Bill in so far as it restores the Assembly. It is important that all Members understand, as Members who have been involved in Northern Ireland affairs over the years do, that a crucial part of the Good Friday agreement—indeed of any agreement to bring stability and harmony to politics in Northern Ireland—must have at its heart the principle that people in Northern Ireland should be governed by people from Northern Ireland in a special way, with shared responsibility among the different communities.
	We are not just talking about the business of devolution. After all, there is devolution in Wales and Scotland. Indeed, it is ironic that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is more of a devolutionist than I, has rightly expanded devolution in Wales, yet if, unhappily, the latter part of the Bill has to be enacted, it would bring the end of devolution in Northern Ireland. The business of devolution is working together—sharing government and making decisions together. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out how difficult that is, inevitably, among parties with fundamentally different political views. It goes beyond that: I would find great difficulty in forming a coalition with the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and other parties in the House, but it is a thousand times more difficult for parties in Northern Ireland.
	The continuance of direct rule would be disastrous for Northern Ireland and for the political process. I was a direct Minister for five years—two years as a Finance Minister and three as Secretary of State dealing with devolved issues. I was deeply uncomfortable in the role of direct rule Minister, although not in dealing with the politics and security of Northern Ireland. My party does not get a single vote in Northern Ireland although the Conservative party wins a number of votes, but apart from the Northern Ireland parties no party has a mandate there, so it is hard for direct rule Ministers to square their conscience when taking difficult decisions on behalf of people from whom they have received no mandate. That is coupled with the ludicrously inadequate method for parliamentary scrutiny of hugely important issues that affect the 1.7 million people in Northern Ireland.
	The Assembly will not be the one set up by the agreement, but I am happy that it will be restored if the Bill is passed, because it will be able to discuss individual issues in Northern Ireland. I believe that it is right for my right hon. Friend to listen exceedingly carefully to those 108 Members elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly on the issues that they want to debate.
	Some issues, such as water rates, rates more widely and other financial matters, remain very controversial in Northern Ireland and every Administration, whether by direct rule or through a restored Assembly, would have to confront them. Some in Northern Ireland, of course, would rather like direct rule Ministers to take the difficult decisions, so that they would not then have to take them themselves.
	Other issues, such as education, are not in that category. Martin McGuiness started the ball rolling when he announced the end of the transfer test, or 11-plus. I had to continue the debate over that issue when I was Secretary of State, and my right hon. Friend is doing it now. It is, of course, an issue that divides people in Northern Ireland. Local government reform is a rather different issue again, in that all parties save one are opposed to it. I repeat to my right hon. Friend that on the highly sensitive issues that will impact on the politics and political geography of Northern Ireland for decades to come, he should listen very carefully to what is said in the intervening weeks—between now and, I hope, the summer, but possibly 24 November.
	We must remember that Northern Ireland Assembly Members were democratically elected. I was present during the election and attended the count. Those Members have a representative role even if they have not yet gathered as an Assembly. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) mentioned earlier that Sinn Fein Members do not—they do not want to—take up their seats in this place, but they still have a representative role, as do Assembly Members. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Ministers will listen very carefully.
	Another problem facing Northern Ireland is that people can become comfortable with direct rule, which is a grave danger. Every person in Northern Ireland who can exercise the franchise should think carefully about the loss of devolution and what it will mean to them—and to their grandchildren. It is a hugely significant issue. I would also say to my Front-Bench colleagues that Ministers must not become too comfortable with direct rule either. It is easy to slip into that, as I have often seen. It is easy to start thinking that we are governing parts of the United Kingdom over which we have some sort of mandate—but we do not. We— whether as Ministers, as parliamentarians or as members of the public in Northern Ireland—must not become comfortable with direct rule. It is not the answer, but the antithesis of the answer.
	Salaries and the endgame are further issues. I would love to hear my right hon. Friend say that the aim over the weeks and months ahead is to succeed. The message from the Government and from this place should be that in the weeks ahead, between now and the summer or November, the key purpose is to ensure that sufficient confidence and trust is built up between the parties in Northern Ireland. The Governments in Dublin and London should help to ensure an end to direct rule and the restoration of the Irish Executive. That has to be the central message. If it does not work, if direct rule continues and devolution is not restored, it will be a great disaster for the people of Northern Ireland. Ultimately, everyone would see a diminution in their lives—not just the democratic deficit, but a diminution in people's proper entitlement to be governed by people who live in Northern Ireland for whom they have voted.
	I understand the frustration of Governments and the political parties in Northern Ireland and I understand the impatience of people living in Northern Ireland. However, when we talk about the great progress made there in recent times, everyone must understand that that is not just a cliché. Enormous progress has been made there politically, socially and economically. It has not come by accident, but through hard work and commitment. It has also taken some time: the time between the signing of the Good Friday agreement and reaching agreement on it was years, not months, but we must not lose patience. We must always have the ultimate aim or the big picture in view. This is about not just the absence of violence on the streets of Northern Ireland, and prosperity in that place—although those are highly significant—but the hugely important issue of people governing themselves.
	Yes, it is probably right that the salaries—the reduced salaries, as people did not receive full ones—should come to an end. They cannot continue to be paid for ever. However, hon. Members should reflect on the fact that, in the intervening years between the referendum and the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly, a political class has developed. It includes a generation of politicians—108 Members, but also others who work for them or who serve in local government—and it is right to say that the political class has to be maintained. If all this does not work—I hope and pray that it will—my hope is that on the eve of my 58th birthday, which will be on 25 November this year, we will not see the collapse of those institutions.

Mark Durkan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In his remarks the Secretary of State spoke of the prospect that would ensue if the current course did not work out. As he put it, the curtain comes down on the process since 1998. In a statement last week, he spoke of closing the book on devolution. The Government need to remember that in present circumstances and in what unfolds in the next few months, it could be in some people's interest to see the book closed on devolution or the curtain coming down on the process since 1998, if that allows them to say that the curtain has come down and the book has been closed on the Good Friday agreement.
	I am not sure that parties are as afraid of the suggestions from the Secretary of State as he might think they are. That outcome might suit the purposes of some parties. It is also clear that parties are not frightened by the prospect of a so-called alternative coming from the two Governments in that context. I am not sure that parties believe that the Governments will be able to muster much of an alternative at the end of the year, depending where the Prime Minister might be, as the Irish Government are on a count-down to elections. The search for a so-called alternative would lead only to confirmation in the eyes of some that the agreement had been abandoned or set aside. Such a situation might suit them. We might not have an agreement as a given. We might not have the restoration of the Assembly as a given—the Government have made it clear that they do not think that it is a given. It might be that the only thing that we have in Northern Ireland as a given is seven super councils. That will involve the balkanisation of Northern Ireland, which is repartition in waiting. There will be three green councils, three orange councils and Belfast, where there will be all to play for.
	When the Secretary of State talks about the possibility of writing off a political generation later this year, he must be careful, because we could end up with a choice that no one has advocated, no one has asked for and nobody has voted for. Over the coming months, we face a choice between two futures. People voted for one of those futures, which will respect and accommodate the mandate of everyone, including people who did not vote for that dispensation. If one listens to the Government, we face the reality of seven super-councils, in which case parties will adapt to the situation and seek to build up their power bases in a divided and politically sterile Northern Ireland.

Patrick Cormack: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who serves on the Select Committee and has a real and deep affection for Northern Ireland, which is obvious whenever one travels there with him.
	I am also glad to be the first Opposition Member to speak after the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who made a highly significant speech, as people will realise when they read it in Hansard tomorrow. He and his deputy, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), have both contributed significantly during this month. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who spoke eloquently from the Front Bench, referred to the two speeches made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, one in the United States on 6 April and the other at the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body on Monday. The substance of the speeches of both the leader and the deputy leader of the DUP was that, for all the difficulties that they face in doing so, they are prepared to sit down with and serve with those of very different political persuasions so long as those people play by the democratic rules and make it abundantly clear that that is what they are doing.
	I, like the right hon. Member for North Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, support the Bill. I wish the Government well over the next few months. I hope that the negotiations will succeed. I am worried about deadlines—I realise that they must be there, but I would rather have the end of the year than 24 November. People in the rest of the United Kingdom do not fully face up to the difficulties that there will be and the daily burden of those who practise democratic politics in Northern Ireland if there is to be a restored Assembly. Those daily burdens have been referred to obliquely in this debate in many ways.
	First, as I said in Question Time today—and the Secretary of State agreed—it is inconceivable that anybody who is engaged directly or indirectly in criminality should be involved in the government of any part of the United Kingdom, whether this House, a district or parish council or a devolved Parliament or Assembly. It is absolutely crucial that those who say that they have renounced the bullet for the ballot box prove that in every possible way.
	Like the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who spoke splendidly earlier, I greatly welcome today's IMC report and what it says. However, we must not make the mistake, because we are encouraged by the good bits, of neglecting the others. There is a clear indication in that report that leading figures on the undemocratic republican side, while they might have renounced terrorism and engaged in a massive act of decommissioning—the latter I accept, and the former I hope that I can accept—are still benefiting from the ill-gotten gains of some pretty horrendous crimes and are still involved in those crimes. It would be wrong for me, as Chairman of the Select Committee, to pre-empt a report that has not yet been drafted, let alone published, but there are several members of the Committee in the Chamber who have listened with me to evidence that we have received from a variety of people and organisations. Some has been heard in public and some in camera because of its sensitivity. We have been told clearly that there are those who have been involved with IRA-Sinn Fein who are deeply implicated in acts of criminality, who have been so implicated in the recent past and almost certainly are at present.
	There must be an absolute renunciation. When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) to say that the best thing that Sinn Fein could do would be to disband the IRA, I meant what I said. That would send those who want Northern Ireland to have a proper democratic future a real signal that Sinn Fein was indeed seeking to turn its back on the past.
	We cannot make hatred history—which is what we must do in Northern Ireland—we cannot engender trust, and we cannot properly embrace the doctrine of forgiveness in which the right hon. Member for North Antrim made clear that he truly believes unless there is a proper understanding that those who wish to sit down with the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party are putting themselves in a context of what I would call democratic equality.
	Even when that happens, there will still be real difficulties in making the Assembly work. The right hon. Member for Torfaen touched on them, amusingly, when he said that he would find it difficult to enter into a coalition with Tories or Liberal Democrats. I would find it difficult to enter into a political coalition with friends—of whom I have many—on the other side of the House, not because I do not trust them and not because I would for a moment impugn their democratic credentials, but because we have very different political beliefs. Yet we in the rest of the United Kingdom are asking the democratic parties in Northern Ireland to sit down with Sinn Fein, whose political beliefs—as I said earlier—are inimical to those of most of us in the Chamber, wherever we come from. Sinn Fein's economic and education policies are closer to those of Cuba than to those of the United Kingdom.

Patrick Cormack: They are indeed.
	Because of the demography of Northern Ireland and the sad history of recent decades, we recognise that we must try to find an accommodation and work with those people. The least that we can expect is for them to behave in the same way as Marxist parties in some democracies—although not many—in other parts of the world.
	We are asking a great deal. I make a plea to the Government on two fronts. I understand why the Secretary of State cannot be present, and I hope that the Minister, who is diligent, will relay my points to him. First, while I accept the firmness of the Government's intention and wish for a deadline, I think that it would be sensible to make it the end of the year. Secondly and more important, I think that it would be sensible, if we are to plead with the parties in Northern Ireland to work together, to refrain from any unnecessary Orders in Council in the House, at least until the November deadline specified by the Government.
	Several speakers, including the right hon. Member for Torfaen, referred to the reform of local government. At the moment, this House is imposing on the people of Northern Ireland a democratic local government structure that none of the democratic parties wants. It is clear to me from my many conversations with people in Northern Ireland that there is an acceptance that there are too many local authorities. But there is an equal acceptance among most to whom I speak that seven authorities is too few—an acceptance of the logic of the argument of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) that such a structure runs the risk of polarising Northern Ireland for generations into, "Three green, three orange and Belfast." Such a structure cannot be good if we truly want a Northern Ireland that works together.
	Frankly, it was very undemocratic of the Secretary of State to dismiss such worries when he was intervened on by saying that business people and various groups want such a structure. Northern Ireland's elected politicians, who are playing a part in the democratic structures of this House, do not want it, so I beg the Minister to put that proposal on ice and to say, as a real encouragement to those who would participate in a proper and fully functioning Assembly, "We will not impose on you a new local government structure if you can get your act together by the deadline."
	I also hope that the same will prove true of education. I accept that unanimity among the parties on this issue does not exist; indeed, it is clear from the evidence that my Committee took, and from talking to people, that there is division. There is probably a majority in Northern Ireland who do not want the change that the Government are seeking to impose, although there seems to be a general recognition that the form of the 11-plus could be altered. However, we should let the Assembly get its teeth into this issue and deal with it. As I said in a jocular aside to the right hon. Member for North Antrim, I am not sure that this House should even be passing water until 24 November; there again, there are deep divisions in Northern Ireland and real concerns. [Interruption.] Perhaps that is what the right hon. Gentleman, who is no longer in his place, has gone to do. [Interruption.] That was indeed a very indelicate remark.
	I urge the Minister to recognise that we are dealing with a number of issues that will affect the daily lives of the people of Northern Ireland for generations to come, and that we are anxious to have an Assembly that represents, is elected by and is answerable to them. Should not that Assembly have the same freedom to decide on such issues as the Parliament established in Scotland and the Assembly established in Wales? If we all mean business, there will have to be give and take on all sides. The absent ones in this House—the Sinn Fein Members who do not take their seats—have got to prove their democratic credentials. I would like them to be here, but if they will not come here, they should at least make the absolute and total renunciation that I have talked about. I say to the Unionist parties—and to the Social, Democratic and Labour party; I well remember the bravery of Gerry Fitt—that those who have suffered at the hands of gangsters and terrorists will have to sit down with those who have been gangsters or terrorists, or who supported them. A lot of give and take is involved.
	We in this House must be prepared to say, "We are going to draw back from interference and domination while you have this period to sort yourselves out." That is not too much to ask of the Government—it is not too heavy a price for them to pay—in order to preserve a truly bipartisan policy. I am very pleased that we in the Select Committee do not divide on party lines. I hope that we will not, and that this House will not do so today or tomorrow. I very much hope that the Secretary of State's wishes will be fulfilled, but I ask that he show the degree of caution and tolerance that is necessary if we are to have a real chance of achieving success on 24 November.

Iris Robinson: I shall say only a few words and leave my colleagues to deal with the nitty-gritty of the measure and what the Assembly should be called and how it will be perceived, which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) mentioned.
	I want to make a few comments about what I had the pleasure of saying in Killarney at the British-Irish parliamentary body meeting on Monday 24 April. My party is up for a fully functioning Assembly with Executive powers. It is in the interests of our people in Northern Ireland for locally elected representatives to make decisions on local issues that affect the everyday lives of Ulster people. We in the Democratic Unionist party are not the problem. The responsibility to step up to the plate lies with Sinn Fein-IRA.
	Too many families are still reeling from the freedom from serving their jail sentences given to murderers when the Belfast agreement was signed, coupled with broken promises, which the Prime Minister made in 1998. He promised that terrorists would not be in government or released from jail. The rest is history.
	The debate has covered most of the pertinent points about the Bill. I would simply like to say that Northern Ireland Members look forward to a time when they no longer have to live behind bullet-proof windows, which are installed in their homes along with panic buttons and cameras, or be driven by police escorts. Like my colleagues, I have grown-up children—whose ages range from 33 to 24—and grandchildren, who are aged between 14 and six. They have never known normality and have always had to endure living in an abnormal setting.
	I therefore have a vested interest in seeing our long-suffering people, as well as my children and grandchildren, experience proper democratic institutions, which will tackle the genuine problems of the serious position of our health service, our educational future and the water charges, which are being foisted upon us.
	However, the caveat is that, when we make our decision in the DUP to go forward, we must ensure that the Assembly is made up of democrats, who are all equal under and subject to the law. No party should have at its disposal an army ready for action if Sinn Fein does not get its way.
	We must ensure that the victims of 35 years of terror are considered. Our party is mandated not to repeat the mistakes of the past in-and-out pantomime of an Assembly. We must get it right. That means Sinn Fein being democratised, with no more criminality and paramilitary activities connected directly or indirectly to it.
	We will play our full part in a devolved Administration if we are satisfied that all the players use only the weapon of argument.

Gordon Banks: The IMC report published today makes the point that the majority of forced exiles are loyalists, not republicans.

David Hanson: Let us see what happens. I believe that progress is being made and will continue to be made, and that the IMC will back that up.
	The Government will not tolerate criminality and paramilitary activity. On the republican side, in March we undertook operations resulting in 100,000 litres of fuel being seized, with the Criminal Assets Bureau freezing £1 million in cash and cheques found during that search. This week alone, the Assets Recovery Agency secured £140,000 from alleged fuel smuggling, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for East Londonderry, for South Antrim and for Lagan Valley. On the loyalist side, in December the Assets Recovery Agency froze £400,000 from alleged loyalist paramilitaries, and assets of £200,000 were frozen after the murder of the alleged loyalist brigadier, Jim Gray. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is currently examining how we deal with such issues. Criminality and paramilitary activity will not be tolerated, and the Government will work towards that end, but I believe that the conditions that Members are seeking will be achieved in due course through movements by the Provisional IRA.
	We have to face reality and look to the significant challenges that will ensue. The Bill provides the framework whereby we can facilitate the dialogue for the future. As the hon. Member for Foyle said, individuals have worked together to do things that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. They did not abandon their beliefs in a united Ireland or in an Ireland that has relationships, through Northern Ireland, with the British Government as part of the United Kingdom, but they worked together on issues to do with the economics and day-to-day life of their communities. More than anything else, I want that to happen now.
	Through the Bill, we have set up the Assembly. I know that the hon. Member for North Down has concerns about that, but I say to her and to others that we want it to be able to discuss real issues as well as to elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister and an Executive, and as soon as possible, I hope, optimistic as I am, to form a Government and return to the full Assembly that the hon. Lady so desires. In the meantime, we have given it the opportunity to discuss and express views on education, the review of public administration, and water charges.
	There has been a serious debate about how the Government will take account of those views in this Chamber. We will listen to what is said and consider the issues that are put to us, but we still have a duty as a Government to govern Northern Ireland in the best interests of its population. Whatever the Assembly that is set up in a fortnight's time may be, it will not be an Executive Assembly until it elects an Executive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my fellow Ministers have a duty to this House to govern Northern Ireland responsibly, and it would be constitutionally wrong for us to say that we will automatically defer to another body while doing so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch observed, we have a job to do in Northern Ireland until such time as the Assembly forms an Executive to do that job.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State clearly set out the cost of maintaining the Assembly that has been unable to function. I pay tribute to the Members of the Assembly for the work that they do at the moment.
	I receive delegations on housing, culture, sport and the range of issues for which I am responsible from Members of the Legislative Assembly who are now doing a constituency job. They write letters to me, visit, press us on a range of subjects and publicly comment on issues. They are doing a job but not the job that we are doing today—holding the Executive to account in a Chamber and legislating. I hope and pray that they will do that in due course in the Assembly. However, in the event of that not happening, we have to consider the costs of the Assembly and the way in which we hold elections to a future Assembly. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set the deadline of 24 November for progress.
	The deadline is not a threat—it is simply an embodiment of a political reality. We cannot go on as we have done. We cannot finance a non-functioning Assembly indefinitely or go through the motions of an election next May to an Assembly that does not meet, legislate or hold the Executive to account.
	The process creates the potential for an Assembly to meet on 15 May and elect an Executive, but, if it cannot do that, to discuss some of the issues and reflect the opinions of the 108 elected Members of the Legislative Assembly to my right hon. Friend and I. That is important.
	Some hon. Members rightly asked about Orders in Council. I have said to the hon. Members for Aylesbury, for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), for Montgomeryshire and others that we do not find that procedure especially satisfactory. There are difficulties with it and my right hon. Friend has written to hon. Members to ask for their views on how we can improve the process. However, we have to govern. We have to make decisions and determine how we make progress in future. We have to run Departments. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and I met business people in Armagh about some of issues on which we govern, they welcomed aspects of what we did. They welcomed some of the changes that we are making in, for example, the review of public administration.
	We will have to listen and we will take representations. There will be an opportunity for the Assembly to present its opinions. However, we are accountable to the House for billions of pounds of public money that my right hon. Friend and I are spending on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland in the absence of the Assembly.
	I hope that the Bill is about success, not failure. We believe that it is the best vehicle for success that can be constructed at the moment. We need the Assembly to be back in place and we must examine how we can make it work for the future. The challenge to all hon. Members is how we do that.
	The hon. Member for North Down mentioned the delay in holding the election. We will discuss that when we consider the amendments tomorrow. We believe that the delay is necessary for the simple reason that, if we get the Assembly operational by October or November, it will work for only a few months before the rigours of an election.